[Repeat posting now that the bouncing @isoc.org address has been fixed]
Hi,
Thanks for posting this.
The SoW for the RSE doesn't...
Sorry, I'll try that again:
The statement of work for the RFC Series Editor doesn't seem to
indicate that the RSE supervises the work of the RFC Production
Service and the RFC Publisher service. That creates a dilution
of authority and responsibility that makes no sense from a service
management perspective. I think there needs to be a clear statement
that the RSE has the primary management responsibility for the
two services. Otherwise, operational confusion is inevitable.
(That may also mean in practice that the RSE manages the contracts,
if the two services are separately contracted.)
It also needs to be clearly stated who the RSE reports to.
Is it the IAB, the IAOC, or the IAD? If it's the IAB or IAOC,
is the chair or the committee as a whole?
Note that I don't have these concerns as strongly for the
Independent Submissions Editor, who is a *client* of the
RSE, the Production Service and the Publisher. But it should
perhaps be made clear in the SoW that the IAB is the formal
reporting channel. "6. The IAB, RFC Series Editor and IAOC
shall review the performance of the ISE." is a bit too
indirect.
The SoWs for the Production Center and the Publisher should
probably make it clear that they report to the RFC Series Editor
in the first instance and the IAD in the second instance;
they seem to be logically isolated from the IAB.
Brian